Note:Updated to include lock-in and tying. Some changes on moral rights to clarify that
Laws are more often than not an annoyance, despite their aim to improve the legal framework in any given field. Free Software (AKA "Open Source") has thrived despite the absence of any legal recognition by the law, if not in spite of rules that clearly are shaped around proprietary software. In many jurisdictions it has passed the enforceability test. So, no laws seem necessary to make it work. Yet, can some legal principle be put forward, and included in some laws, to help?
"If it works don't fix it", so goes the common saying. But if it works now doesn't mean it will work forever. It is nevertheless upon lawyers, and legislators alike, to foresee problems ahead of their actual happening, and brace for the potential harmful event. But any laws that would regulate Free Software would likely harm some parts of it, and change the games to favor one kind over another, or impose conditions that are not welcome or productive – something that legislator, even with the best intentions, often do – and in general could cause as many troubles as they would produce benefit. "Primum non nocere" is the paradigm for medical actions, even though drugs by definition only produce a net benefit by inflicting some limited damage. Is there a medicament that has entirely good effects without any negative ones? Arguably there is not. But with laws we can achieve something closer to this optimal benefit, which economists know as "Pareto Efficiency".
So this is a call for Pareto Efficient Laws, and Pareto optimal only laws.
A few minutes ago, Oracle has announced that Openoffice.org, the ODF-based Free Software suite for office productivity, will become a community developed project. In plain English, no more dual licensing, no more proprietary version, go ahead to incoming patches. Woot!
I am very happy to hear about this move, which was not entirely unexpected (by me, at least). To tell all the truth, reaching this point was my secret plan when I have started helping Oracle in the merger control procedure opened by the European Commission last year, where the acquisition of Sun was under scrutiny. I was telling everybody that the dual licensing approach was going to die, that id did not make much sense anymore, that it was "moot" – I actually mentioned MySQL there, but the same applies to Openoffice.org, actually. As it turns out, I was right.
Un nuovo numero della International Free and Open Source Software Law Review è stato pubblicato. Questo numero contiene, tra gli altri, un interessante articolo del mio amico Maurits Dolmans circa l'interazione tra i brevetti e gli standard, con un appello per gli Open Standards. Merita assoultamente di essere letto. Altrettanto notevole è un'introduzione a un documento che cerca di chiarire come le varie modalità di linking e altre interazioni tra software di differente provenienza possa funzionare – o non funzionare – in ambito copyleft, di Malcolm Bain.
Altre questioni "calde" coperte sono la brevettazione di software in Europa, di Noam Shemtov, e un articolo sul progetto, in qualche modo controverso, chiamato Project Harmony. Il suo scopo e funzionamento viene spiegato dall'Avvocato Amanda Brock. Per coloro che si interessanto di gare pubbliche, l'articolo di Mathieu Paapst spiega alcuni aspetti delle azioni agevolatrici in favore dell'open source, principalmente da un punto di vista economico, il che fa da appropriato complemento al mio articolo contenuto nel precedente numero. Coloro che amano leggere autori controversi, avranno piacere nel dissentire dall'articolo-piattaforma di Matt Asay.
It was yesterday in the Herald Tribune, but the news was lingering around even before. Really soon the European Commission will finalize a settlement with Microsoft, possibly closing two big antitrust issues: the tying of the browser with Microsoft Windows and the withholding of interoperability information. I have had the opportunity to comment on the proposal of Microsoft earlier this August, because the Commission has formally asked the opinion of FSFE, which is an interested third party in the procedure. I hope things have improved from then, because there were serious gaps in the proposed commitment.
The point is that the current Commission is going to step down in a few weeks, and Commissioner Kroes – who has an incredibly good track record on the Microsoft case – might feel the urgency to close everything behind her, leaving the office empty and her case teams without a case. But at which conditions?
To use my good friend Jeremy Allison's words, will we be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?
Andy Updegrove has published his own take on the Rambus case, which he was following more closing from an US perspective. Andy is a leading authority when it comes to the law in the standards world, and beyond. We have had the opportunity to discuss this case earlier on, and I find his insight very valuable.
I wanted to keep a low key on that, but the news hit the press and the avalanche started mounting.
I have submitted for approval to OSI a license on behalf of my good friend and client Mr. Leonardo Chiariglione, convenor of the ISO/IEC JTC1 WG11 (also known as MPEG).
Un nuovo numero della 